Michigan Reading Journal Michigan Reading Journal

Volume 9 Issue 2 Article 3

May 1975

How Good are Your Questions? How Good are Your Questions?

Donna J. Read

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Read, Donna J. (1975) "How Good are Your Questions?," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 9 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol9/iss2/3

From The Teachers & Writers Guide to Classic American Literature, edited by Christopher Edgar and Gary Lenhart, 2001, New York, NY: Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Copyright 2001 by Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Reprinted with permission.

This work is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.

HOW GOOD ARE YOUR QUESTIONS?

by Donna J. Read

Think for a moment. How do you influence students thinking skills in your classroom? Is it primarily through oral discussion? Is it through the use of skillsheets? Or is it through games? Whether you use skillsheets, games, oral discussion, or a basal reading pro­gram, there is probably one technique germane to all of the methods you use - teacher questioning.

Educators have long stated their concern for improving thinking skills of students. Since Thorndike's1 famous statement in 1919 that "to read is to think" attention for improving think­ing skills has increased. Of current interest to researchers is how thinking ability develops and how teachers can aid in the development of a higher level thinking skills, especially through the technique of questioning. Research

What is thinking? How does think­ing function? How does thinking de­velop? What does research reveal about how teacher questioning affects think­ing in the classroom?

In an effort to learn more about thinking processes, some researchers have been concerned with the theory of intellectual development or how thought develops in children. One of the most notable studies of thought development is that of the Swiss Psy­chologist Jean Piaget2 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Piaget identifies four intellectual stages of development in children from pre-school to post-adolescence. These stages are: (1) Sensory-Motor (birth to two years) (2) Pre-Operational or Rep­resentational (two to seven years) (3) Concrete Operations (seven to eleven years), and (4) Formal Operations (twelve to fourteen years).

32

Piaget postulates that each stage of learning is vital for the development of the succeeding stages. He stresses that some individuals will move more rapidly than others through these stages, but this progression exists in all individuals.

What is the implication of Piaget's research for teachers? Basically, his theory suggests that intellectual func­tioning will change depending upon the nature of teaching to which the child is exposed. That is, if a teacher will provide opportunities in the class­room to stimulate higher level thinking skills, a change will result. If the teacher does not offer activities to develop the different levels of cogni­tion, little or no change will result.

While researchers like Piaget ana­lyzed the theory of intellectual func­tioning, others have studied how teach­ing strategy relates to cognitive pro­cesses.

In a study of teacher-pupil inter­action, Guzak3 observed teachers using a basal reading program and discovered that teachers do most of the talking in the classroom. An examination of this interaction revealed that two-thirds of the questions asked by teachers stressed remembering outcomes and facts. He found that little or no time was de­voted to asking higher level questions such as those dealing with interpreta­tions, making comparisons, or evalua­tion.

In another study related to thinking Gallagher4 also examined verbal inter­action in ten English, science, and social studies classes on a secondary level. He recorded and then analyzed tapes of the classes and found that cognitive memory or recall of facts was the most prevalent response given

bt students. In addition, he found that this response was directly related to the style of teacher questioning used in the classroom. Teachers intended to ask factual questions most frequently and thus student response was primar­ily recall of facts. Gallagher also dis­covered that the least kind of thinking pattern required of students was evalua­tion i.e., critical thinking. Most teachers emphasized recall of facts and did little to foster critical thinking that deals with making judgments, or examining values, etc.

In an attempt to define the thinking process and its relationship to teaching, Hilda Taba5 conducted a study for the U.S. Office of Education. Taba defined three cognitive tasks necessary for improving thinking skills of students. They are (1) Concept Formation - The ability to differentiate, group, cate­gorize and label objects or events. (2) Interpretation of Data and Infer­ence - The ability to enumerate data, establish relationships and form in­ferences. (3) Application of Principles -The ability to hypothesize and develop the casual links between conditions and predictions.

The results of Taba's study indicate that teachers who were trained in using teaching strategies that emphasized these three cognitive tasks were super­ior in eliciting higher level thinking behaviors of students than those teachers who were not so trained. Thus the success of the study was attributed primarily to the kinds of questions asked by the teacher.

It is evident after careful examina­tion of research related to thinking and teacher questioning that the kinds of questions a teacher emphasizes does influence students thinking patterns. The teacher who emphasizes only re­call of facts during questioning does little to enhance stud en ts thinking behaviors. On the other hand, the teacher who asks questions of a factual, interpretive, and critical nature stimu­lates various levels of thought.

33

Application How can a teacher implement find­

ings from basic research about teacher questioning in teaching? What gui~es are available to help the teacher wnte or evaluate questions that stress all levels of thinking?

One of the most current and popu­lar guides developed to improve com­prehension through the use of ques­tions is Barrett's 6 Taxonomy of Read­ing Comprehension.

Barrett has categorized reading com­prehension skills into four major c~assi­fications: (1) Literal Comprehension -This includes questions that relate to identification of details, sequence and main idea which is explicitly stated in the material. (2) Inferential Compr~­hension - Making inferences involves the use of literal content, personal knowledge and imagination. On this level students use facts stated in the story, but build on them, by inferring sequence, predicting outcomes, etc. (3) Evaluation - Evaluation encompas­ses critical reading or higher level think­ing skills. Students are asked to make judgments about material, or discern between fact or opinion, etc. ( 4) Appreciation - This area ~f co_mpre~en­sion stresses the aesthetic dlillens1ons of reading. Discussion about imagery, allegory, etc. is planned.

Barrett's taxonomy is designed to aid teachers in two ways: (1) To use the taxonomy as a guide to develop original questions to guide children's reading and thinking, and (2) To use the taxonomy as a guide for evaluating the kinds of student responses expec­ted while using basal materials. Hope­fully if the basal program or supple­mental materials stress one kind of response the teacher will be able to rewrite or add additional questions that foster all levels of thinking, thus enhancing comprehension.

The usefulness of Barrett's taxon­omy can be illustrated by using the story, The Tale of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter.7 It involves a rabbit

who does not listen to his mother and is almost caught by Mr. McGregor in his garden. The questions that might be included in the lesson are: (1) What were the names of the rabbits in the story? (2) Where did the rabbits go? (3) What happened in the story? (4) Why do you think Peter went into Mr. McGregor's garden? (5) Why do you think Mr. McGregor was angry? (6) Could this story end in other ways? How? (7) What is similar in this story to something in your life? What hap­pened to you? Why do you think you did that? How di<;l you feel afterwards? (8) Was Peter naughty? Explain.

How can a teacher change ques­tioning patterns to enhance student's thinking skills? The teacher concerned with influencing all levels of thinking behaviors might read these questions and ask: (1) Which level of thinking is stressed most through these questions? (2) Do I feel that is necessary? (3) Which questions might I eliminate? (4) What kinds of questions should I add? (5) ls the story worthwhile for stu­dents to discuss? Why or why not?

In conclusion, the material present­ed in this article reveals teachers do influence students thinking patterns

REMINDER

through questioning techniques used in the classroom. This article also emphasizes that teachers can change their questioning techniques if they wish to do so.

Is it time to improve your question­ing skills teacher? If so, do it today!

REFERENCES

1. Edward L. Thorndike, "The Under­standing of Sentences," Elementary School Journal, 18, (1917) 114. 2. Jean Piaget, "Piaget and Reading Instruc­tion," The Reading Teacher, 24, 7 (1971), 630-639. 3. Frank Guzak, "Teacher Questioning and Reading," The Reading Teacher, 21 (1968), 227-234. 4. J.J. Gallagher, "Productive Thinking of Gifted Children," (Urbana: University of Illinois, U.S. Office of Education Coopera­tive Research Project No. 965, 1965). 5. Hilda Taba, "Teaching Strategies and Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Children," (San Francisco: U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 2404, 1966). 6. Thomas Barrett, "Taxonomy of Cogni­tive and Affective Dimensions of Reading Comprehension." Unpublished paper sent and used by permission. 7. Beatrix Potter, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, (New York: F. Warne and Co., 1902).

Pay annual Membership Dues by

December 31, 1975

34

..

,,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrett, Thomas. "Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Reading Com­prehension." Unpublished paper sent and used by permission. Bloom, Benjamin and others. Taxonomy o! Educational Objectives, Handbook I : Cogni­tive Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1956. Flanders, N. " Teachers Influence Pupils Attitudes and Achievement." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Furth, Hans. Piaget for Teachers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall , Inc. , 1970. Gallagher, J.J. "Productive Thinking of Gifted Children." Urbana: University of Illinois, U.S. Office of Education Coopera­tive Research Project No. 965, 1965. Guilford, J. "Frontiers in Thinking That Teachers Should Know About." The Read­ing Teacher, 13 (February, 1960), 176-183. Guzak, Frank. "Teacher Questioning and Reading." The Reading Teacher, 21 (1968), 227-234. Porterfield Denzil. "Influence of Inquiry­Discovery Science Preparation on Question­ing Behavior of Reading Teachers." The

35

Reading Teacher, 27, 6 (March, 1974). 589-593. Potter Beatrix. The Tale of Peter Rabbit. New York : F. Warne and Co ., 1902. Sanders, Norris. Classroom Questions - What Kinds? New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Shumsky, Abraham. In Search of Teaching Style. New York : Appleton-Century-Crafts, 1968. Sullivan, Joanna. "Receptive and Critical Reading Develops at All Levels." The Read­ing Teacher, 27, 8 (May, 1974) 796-800. Taba, Hilda. "Teaching Strategies and Cog­nitive Functioning in Elementary School Children." San Francisco: U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 2404, 1966. Thorndike, Edward L. "The Understanding of Sentences." Elementary School Journal, 18, (1917) 114. Wolf, W. , Huck, C. and King, M.L. "Critical Reading Ability of Elementary School Child­ren." Columbus: Ohio State University. U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 5-1040, 1967

(Dr. Donna J. Read is Assistant Professor of Education at Saginaw Valley State Col ­lege.)